It seems that our day and age is chock filled with ‘junk-science’ hysteria on the order of Chicken Little with dire predictions of the sky falling at any minute. Or in this case it is the impending global warming as caused by the activities of modern man. Instead of the sky falling it will be the polar caps melting and oceans rising. Naturally oceans rising will not be the only impact with the ENTIRE globe turned into one great big sauna. Heck it could get so bad that one will need an air condition at the South Pole. (gasp)
This issue of global warming certainly has barged into the field of architecture since reducing a building’s ‘carbon footprint is a strong component of achieving the most coveted LEED ‘Platinum Certification’. Of course this is more than just what the building does ‘just sitting there’ . . . but into the entire aspect of obtaining the raw materials and processing into products used in the building as well as construction of the building itself. Even for that matter how you get to the building . . . as I understand it.
This notion of a gas comprising only 2% of the atmosphere being capable of causing such alleged dire effects is shear lunacy. Even more so because it may be refuted with simple common sense and middle school earth science. (at least earth science I learned in the early ’70s).
First off, the real driver in this precious little planet’s temperature in that orange thingy in the sky. You know, that orb that rises in the east and sets in the west. Called ‘The Sun’ in the English language. Variations in what is called ‘solar insolation’ as related to the tilt of the earth are the primary drivers in global warming and cooling. Of course atmospheric conditions do play a part, but it is water, i.e. moisture vapor and the hydraulic cycle that the affect change in the climate, on the global climatic scale and on the micro-climatic scale.
Before we go any further, please read this link from the wall street journal. It is an opinion piece written and signed by 16 scientists who reject the notion of man induced global warming. It is succinct and to the point:
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic Over Global Warming
As per the post, CO2 is an essential trace gas. It actually acts to stimulate plant growth. And plants are good for the environment as they provide cooling through shade and the process of transpiration. The article notes that plants do so much better with a higher concentration of CO2 that those individuals who operate greenhouses increase the amount of CO2 by the factor of three or four. Moreover, they noted that in this planet’s past levels of CO2 were ten times the level they are today. If CO2 stimulates plant growth, then more plants would absorb more CO2, keeping the amount of CO2 at a consistent level.
Again, it is only 2% of the atmosphere. I have not seen it explained anywhere how an invisible trace gas may have such strong greenhouse effect. To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any true repeatable scientific experiments that demonstrate this ability. Also, I am not aware of any true scientific modeling that demonstrates how such a gas disperses in the air, and how that dispersal affects a climate via a greenhouse effect. Does the gas disperse evenly into the atmosphere, or does it ‘coagulate’ (for lack of a better word) into this layers? Unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise, the assumption would be that it disperse evenly. Also, Since human generated CO2 is created at ground level, does any of it manage to get high enough in the atmosphere to have an effect before being absorbed by plants? If one would read the links posted in the postscript, one would find that CO2 has the heaviest molecular weight of the primary constituents of the atmosphere, indicating that it has a tendency to SINK down to the ground and be absorbed by same. (and absorbed by bodies of water on the ground)
Just a thought. If CO2 is such an effective greenhouse gas, why don’t window manufacturer’s use it instead of argon?
Correlation does not equal causation. This should be posted in every institution where any kind of ‘research’ of any type is done. It certainly applies in the case of ‘alleged’ global warming where studies indicate a correlation between a rise in temperature and CO2 production. Simple associative reasoning blame the rise in CO2 for the rise in temperature. It is also convenient to do so because it validates the desired premise. But does one cause the other, or are they independent of each other, or driven by some other as yet undiscovered factor? Considering that heat rises are caused by the aforementioned factors, i.e. variance in solar isolation and moisture then maybe the CO2 is increase is driven by the heat rise? Considering that, more heat increases biological and chemical activity and such activity results in more CO2. In fact the earth’s ocean are noted by researcher as a leading source of CO2, releasing it as the water warms in response to increased levels of solar radiation. Again middle school science with a few principles borrowed from high school textbook in biology and chemistry.
All of above pretty much applies to the notion of methane as a greenhouse gas as well. The livestock industry has been named as a culprit in the production of methane and the resultant ‘alleged’ warming effect. Again, common sense and that middle school education applies. This time its basic American history. Before the advent of European settlers this country was a lush haven of big game. Out on the great prairies herds of buffalo were so vast that they filled the prairie from horizon to horizon, producing vast quantities of the odious green house gas. Along with ‘where the deer and antelope play’. The vast herds simply don’t exist anymore. Are we really producing any more methane now than 250 years ago?
It seems that global warming had become more of a religion than anything resembling a scientific theory. There are the ‘true believers’ and then there are global warming skeptics who must be treated as heretics by those of the ‘true faith’.
Well I would rather be a proud heretic and think for myself than let others think for me and follow the herd . . .
Moo?
As a postscript to this blog I did a quick search typing in the search terms ‘global warming’ and ‘scam’ and found these results:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – Fact or Hoax? An article by James A Peden
Global Climat Scam – Exposing the Truth About Global Warming Hysteria